Metaphorically speaking yes and we do it nearly every day in regards to religion, politics, economics and science.

A majority of people believe in a god which created everything which uses nearly the same kind of false justification as flat earther's because they have never had any real proof in hand of anything. Why we may as well be debating whether a bigfoot riding a unicorn prefers western or side saddle?. Look at Donald Trump a narcissistic, bigot, racist, known to be a compulsive liar who may be the next president of the united states, a barbarian. If this isn't a very good indication that the flat earth mentality is alive and well in this day and age then what is?.

Look at economics and the fact 1% hold 99% of the worlds wealth and yet the common man champions capitalism and the mega corporation mentality. Why not just get down on your knee's and beg like a dog to be a slave because in effect that is exactly what is going to happen. Corporate monopolies have become the norm and they are growing so uhm... how exactly do you think this story is going to end my friend?. Then we have science and the pursuit of truth. However not unlike religion it can only be the truth if it is the same truth and not something different. Which is a way of saying they think it's great you have an opinion so long as it's the same as theirs otherwise you must be wrong or mentally challenged in some way.

So yes in a sense we debate with the knuckle dragging flat earther's every single day and most of them think their rocket scientists. They got it all figured out, all under control and nobody, nobody, is going to tell them any different. Me I'm fluid, I'm on the fence watching the spectacle of it all waiting for Rome to burn and burn it will.

If you believe in flat earth you will never look for inner earth, and that is what is intended.

You're wrongly implying the flat earth has no depth for it to also be hollow in order for there to be an inner earth. The flat earth does have a thickness/depth to it, and it doesn't have to be completely solid as you falsely assert and imply. Most people who refer to a flat earth is referring to the overall flatness on the surface of the earth, which means the surface of the earth has no curvature as we find in the globe model that is pushed by TPTB. The round dome above the surface of the earth, along with the atmosphere between the dome and flat surface, could be regarded as a upper hemisphere, and the earth below the surface could be concave to form a lower hemisphere. In this sense, both hemispheres taken together could be regarded as a globe, but this isn't the same globe model that has a curvature on the surface of the earth that has been pushed by TPTB for the last 500 years. However, the earth below the surface doesn't necessarily have to be concave. In other-words, the bottom below the surface could also be flat as we find at the surface.

Your wrongly implying the flat earth has no depth for it to also be hollow in order for there to be an inner earth. The flat earth does have a thickness/depth to it, and it doesn't have to be completely solid as you falsely assert and imply. Most people who refer to a flat earth is referring to the overall flatness on the surface of the earth, which means the surface of the earth has no curvature as we find in the globe model that is pushed by TPTB. The round dome above the surface of the earth, along with the atmosphere between the dome and surface, could be regarded as a upper hemisphere, and the earth below the surface could be concave to form a lower hemisphere. In this sense, both hemispheres taken together could be regarded as a globe, but this isn't the same globe model that has a curvature on the surface of the earth that has been pushed by TPTB for the last 500 years. However, the earth below the surface doesn't necessarily have to be concave. In other-words, the bottom below the surface could also be flat as we find at the surface.

Gravock

Wow, flat upper earth and flat inner earth. Double blasphemy! You will be hunted down by TPTB and the rulers from inner earth.

I have to consult inner earth about this! I will ask them to forgive you. It is strangely logical to go from the believe in flat earth to the believe in flat outer earth and flat inner earth. To err is human and you should not suffer for this.

There remains a question: If there is a "flat outer earth" and a "flat inner earth" and if the "flat thing" in-between has a thickness, there could be a "true inner earth in this flat thing"? What you call the "flat inner earth" could just be a "mirror outer earth"?

Look at the drawing which could depict the integrated whole truth. I am not saying that this is disclosure of the big secret, I just help you to see your errors of judgement. I want to save you.

Wow, flat upper earth and flat inner earth. Double blasphemy! You will be hunted down by TPTB and the rulers from inner earth.

I have to consult inner earth about this! I will ask them to forgive you. It is strangely logical to go from the believe in flat earth to the believe in flat outer earth and flat inner earth. To err is human and you should not suffer for this.

There remains a question: If there is a "flat outer earth" and a "flat inner earth" and if the "flat thing" in-between has a thickness, there could be a "true inner earth in this flat thing"? What you call the "flat inner earth" could just be a "mirror outer earth"?

Look at the drawing which could depict the integrated whole truth. I am not saying that this is disclosure of the big secret, I just help you to see your errors of judgement. I want to save you.

Greetings, Conrad

You're helping me to see the errors of my judgement? ROFLMAO!!! It is you who asserted and implied that the flat earth must be completely solid with little to no relative depth to it, and not me! You work through deception/lies and can't save anybody, not even yourself!!! I'm looking forward in being hunted down...

Why don't we see any fake cgi images released by NASA of the oblate pear shaped earth as promoted by astrophysicist Neil deGrasse Tyson (see first and second images below)? The fake cgi images by NASA don't even show an oblate earth, but are perfectly round with the continents changing sizes, shapes, and positions over time (see third image below)! ROFLMAO!!! You balling globalists debunk yourselves at every turn, lol.

And the flatties (flat earth believers) have no aliens, which is really un-cool.

Every good conspiracy needs aliens or it is just flat. If the tall tale has aliens and OU it would be even better. And the inner earth stories contain many amazing energy sources and devices, even teleportation. Can any flatty compete with that?

So, if I want strange, if I want weird, if I want to conspire, I would go for inner earth and its aliens and its far out technology and resources. As an avid follower I would go for a winner.

Why don't we see any fake cgi images released by NASA of the oblate pear shaped earth as promoted by astrophysicist Neil deGrasse Tyson (see first and second images below)? The fake cgi images by NASA don't even show an oblate earth, but are perfectly round with the continents changing sizes, shapes, and positions over time (see third image below)! ROFLMAO!!! You balling globalists debunk yourselves at every turn, lol.

Gravock

Actually, you betray your own ignorance and gullibility with every post you make. The Earth deviates from a true sphere by slightly less than 1 part in 300. There is no way that you could even see that deviation on images like you have posted.

And it may be clear _even to you_ that images of the Earth taken at different times of the day, by different satellites in different positions, using different satellite imaging systems, color-processed by different people and copy-pasted and altered nobody knows how many times before they appear in your silly posts.... would look different.

You have presented YET ANOTHER utter fail, which not only does not support your silly contentions but also reveals your utter ignorance of photography, satellite imaging systems, geography and logical thought. Congratulations!

Quote

The simplest model for the shape of the entire Earth is a sphere. The Earth's radius is the distance from Earth's center to its surface, about 6,371 kilometers (3,959 mi). While "radius" normally is a characteristic of perfect spheres, the Earth deviates from a perfect sphere by only a third of a percent, sufficiently close to treat it as a sphere in many contexts and justifying the term "the radius of the Earth".The concept of a spherical Earth dates back to around the 6th century BC,[2] but remained a matter of philosophical speculation until the 3rd century BC. The first scientific estimation of the radius of the earth was given by Eratosthenes about 240 BC, with estimates of the accuracy of Eratosthenes’s measurement ranging from 2% to 15%.The Earth is only approximately spherical, so no single value serves as its natural radius. Distances from points on the surface to the center range from 6,353 km to 6,384 km (3,947 – 3,968 mi). Several different ways of modeling the Earth as a sphere each yield a mean radius of 6,371 kilometers (3,959 mi). Regardless of the model, any radius falls between the polar minimum of about 6,357 km and the equatorial maximum of about 6,378 km (3,950 – 3,963 mi). The difference 21 kilometers (13 mi) correspond to the polar radius being approximately 0.3% shorter than the equator radius.

The difference is about the same, proportionally, as the difference between the thickness of the skin of an apple, and the entire diameter of the apple. Not something you are going to be able to detect on any ordinary-sized photograph.

Got any more silly interpretations and false claims about real data? Keep them coming, you are definitely low-hanging fruit, easy to pick off.

Actually, you betray your own ignorance and gullibility with every post you make. The Earth deviates from a true sphere by slightly less than 1 part in 300. There is no way that you could even see that deviation on images like you have posted.

And it may be clear _even to you_ that images of the Earth taken at different times of the day, by different satellites in different positions, using different satellite imaging systems, color-processed by different people and copy-pasted and altered nobody knows how many times before they appear in your silly posts.... would look different.

You have presented YET ANOTHER utter fail, which not only does not support your silly contentions but also reveals your utter ignorance of photography, satellite imaging systems, geography and logical thought. Congratulations!https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Figure_of_the_Earth

The difference is about the same, proportionally, as the difference between the thickness of the skin of an apple, and the entire diameter of the apple. Not something you are going to be able to detect on any ordinary-sized photograph.

Got any more silly interpretations and false claims about real data? Keep them coming, you are definitely low-hanging fruit, easy to pick off.

Well, let's look at a fake camera image of the full earth released by NASA during the fake Apollo 16 mission (first image below), and not some theoretical models on the figure of the earth, as shown on wikepedia. This image of the full Earth released by NASA sure does deviate from a true sphere by more than 1 part in 300 and is easily detectable in the image!!! Like I said before, the images of the earth as released by NASA aren't consistent with one another. It's very obvious this image is not a photo taken with a hand-held Hasselblad camera, but is a composite, cropped and mashed together image (second image below). The fact that the cropping actually follows the supposed 'Earth shadow' shows that it was cropped - to make it look like there is a shadow there. Why would NASA do that? It makes no logical sense that anyone would crop an image in this way, if it was a genuine photo. The image on NASA's site is now different (third image below). NASA changed the original fake cropped image (first image below) after this video showing the cropping (second image below) was uploaded.﻿ However, the image on the web archive (first image below) still shows the old cropped image.

Well, let's look at a fake camera image of the full earth released by NASA during the fake Apollo 16 mission (first image below), and not some theoretical models on the figure of the earth, as shown on wikepedia. This image of the full Earth released by NASA sure does deviate from a true sphere by more than 1 part in 300 and is easily detectable in the image!!! Like I said before, the images of the earth as released by NASA aren't consistent with one another. It's very obvious this image is not a photo taken with a hand-held Hasselblad camera, but is a composite, cropped and mashed together image (second image below). The fact that the cropping actually follows the supposed 'Earth shadow' shows that it was cropped - to make it look like there is a shadow there. Why would NASA do that? It makes no logical sense that anyone would crop an image in this way, if it was a genuine photo. The image on NASA's site is now different (third image below). NASA changed the original fake cropped image (first image below) after this video showing the cropping (second image below) was uploaded.﻿ However, the image on the web archive (first image below) still shows the old cropped image.

None of the NASA Photographs or footage of the Earth is real. Robert Simmons, a Data Visualiser and Information Designer for NASA freely admits that all the still images of Earth from space, (including his creation of the recent ‘Blue Marble' image), are simply composite images and not real photographs. Check it out for yourself (video). The video has rare audio of NASA's Robert Simmons as he explains using photo shop on earth pics. None of the pictures have ever been real. All pictures of the globe earth are null x void!!

Real data comes from real photographs, and not fake computer generated images from fake virtual satellite data! You have the process completely backwards and inverted as always.

Gravock

No, it is you who continue to show your ignorance and lack of reasoning ability. Just as I have said, you simply deny the validity of any evidence against your silly claims.

In the first place, there is really no such thing as a "real photograph" of astronomical objects from satellites, or even earth-bound telescopes. Modern satellites do not use film cameras and the images aren't developed at your local one-hour photo service! When an imaging system with a narrow field of view is used to make an image of a larger object, multiple images are stitched together into a mosaic. Each individual image is processed in various ways, and the final image is further processed to make a resulting overall image. This does NOT mean that the image is faked! (Of course to YOU it does, since all data that refutes you is faked, according to you.)

For example look at my own Lunar image attached below. This is a 5-frame mosaic. The original images of parts of the nearly-full Moon were taken with a Canon Xti DSLR camera-- NOT a film camera. This camera uses an electronic sensor to capture photons of light. The charges on the pixels of the sensor are then converted to something that the human eye can interpret as an image -- brightness levels of individual pixels. Then I take the raw digital data from the camera and process it in various ways to enhance contrast, adjust color values, sharpness and etc. using a program called PixInsight. Then the individual partial frames are matched and stitched together by another program called nip2. Then the overall full image is once again adjusted and smoothed using PixInsight again, and further sharpened and resized by another program called gimp, which is essentially a free PhotoShop. Then the _bits_ of data which represent the image are uploaded, stored, presented to you, then you see them through another program which displays them on your screen. That program makes further guesses and alterations before presenting it to the software that shows it to you, and your monitor alters it even further, based on your local settings for brightness, contrast, color temperature, and etc.

So does all of this "prove" that the image is not an image of the real Moon, taken from my backyard by me, and which "looks like" the real, actual Moon? According to your weak minded attempts at reasoning, it's not a "real photograph" and therefore is fake. Oh... wait a minute.... I almost forgot... the Moon itself is faked, isn't it!!!

In the second place, you are rather inconsistent in your ramblings. NASA and all the other space agencies and telescope operators all around the world -- or all "across" the flat world according to you -- are smart enough to manufacture and continue this worldwide conspiracy but aren't smart enough to make images that are consistent with your weak ideas of what a "real photograph" should look like.